New Build of Desros for LM, TPE

[61653]

Apparently LM are looking into the feasibility getting ALL 350s passed for 110mph running on the WCML anyway. But then, that's based on something in LIAR...

[JamieLei]

That'll be interesting. If something was built with a design speed of 100mph, then how feasible is it to push it to 110? I remember someone, possibly Dave, vehemently denying that it was possible.

[Ameecher]

It's possible but things like component wear will increase so maintenance frequency might have to increased. Also there could* be issues with crashworthiness with regard to the cab end design only having been designed for 100mph and is already out of date re current crash regulations.

*don't quote me on this

[Dave]

Think you're right. Something to do with the central corridor jutting out too far also. 110mph running is unlikely as they'd have to be regeared, something which couldn't be done on site I'm guessing, and so lengthy and costly programme of regearing would ensue, after which there's no likelihood they'd ever get a fastline path anyway!

[JamieLei]

Think you're right. Something to do with the central corridor jutting out too far also. 110mph running is unlikely as they'd have to be regeared, something which couldn't be done on site I'm guessing, and so lengthy and costly programme of regearing would ensue, after which there's no likelihood they'd ever get a fastline path anyway!

I would have thought it would be more likely they get a fast path. After all, if they can secure a 100mph path that isn't overtaken for the Crewe services between London and MKC, then I don't see why they can't speed that up to 110mph.

[Kevo00]

Sensible speeds between London and MKC? Oh we couldn't have that, not in the morning rush hour, oh no. Not when you could be taking in the delights of Cheddington and some fields near Tring instead. And of course all trains must travel at less than half of linespeed after 2200 or they slip on the dew. Far better to spend the money on some bus shelter in Cumbria or something.

[Ameecher]

Better way of speeding up LM services would be to scrap the ridiculous 9 min waits at Northampton.

[John]

That'll be interesting. If something was built with a design speed of 100mph, then how feasible is it to push it to 110? I remember someone, possibly Dave, vehemently denying that it was possible.

Speaking as an engineer, that depends entirely on what it was actually originally designed to do, rather then to what it was actually certified to do. *

You'll also find that something designed to consistently travel at 100mph will be able to do 110mph, just not quite so efficiently. A 10% increase in speed won't suddenly lead to everything falling apart or components wearing out considerably quicker. It all depends on how much margin was in the original design, and how long it would actually hit 110 (i.e. will it cruise at that for lengths or time, or will that be an occasional peak).

When something has been in service already, you have a lot of data on how it actually performs. This means you know how much further you can push it, or where a subtle tweak is needed to push it further. With clean sheet designs you don't have that benefit, so need extra margins.**

Of course, if the new crash regulations can't be met, then it won't happen.


*A company will very rarely actually tell anyone what it told its engineers to design to. What they say and what they do can be very different.
**slightly off topic, but its how both the B737 and the A320 have gained winglets. 20 years in service gives you a much better idea than even the most detailed computer model, of what a structure can actually do.

[Dave]

I've taken a sample of Euston on a weekday... 20 Virgin trains leave Euston between 1500 and 1657 (so two hours... six to Brum/Wolves, six to Manc, two to Liverpool, three to Glasgow, two to Bangor/Chester and 1P21 ... a relief service to Preston).

That's a train every six minutes. It's not about "can you make your train keep up with ours?", it's "sorry, your train would have to maintain a three minute signal headway to fit in".

[JamieLei]

To be honest, pushing it to 110 would mean it would push a 10 minute journey down to 9 minutes. Which is probably 2 - 2 and a half mins off the time from MKC at most.

What's probably more useful is being able to run at that 110 to make up time in the slack. The domestic HS1 services are unfortunately only timed to travel at 125mph I believe, and they can go at up to 140 if they're running late.

Edit: Some more info here from LM themselves: http://www.londonmidland.com/news/lates ... e-express/

Interesting bit: "This announcement follows an EU-wide competitive procurement process for new electric rolling stock conducted by London Midland. The competition commenced with the publication of a contract notice in the OJEU in April 2009, which identified a requirement for between 40 and 120 vehicles, and attracted responses from a number of interested financiers and suppliers from both UK and wider European markets.

Since the start of 2011 a great deal of effort has been undertaken by London Midland with bidders to accommodate changes to the original requirements and to reach the point of being able to select the preferred bidders. "

....

"Subject to the negotiations with the preferred bidders being brought to a successful conclusion and to the outcome of negotiations with the Department for Transport, contracts with Siemens and Angel Trains are currently expected to be finalised and signed at the end of 2011/early 2012. The original target for introduction of all the new vehicles into service was May 2011. At present, delivery of the first unit is expected in the autumn of 2013 and it is anticipated that that FTPE will receive its vehicles ahead of London Midland."

[Kevo00]

Make up time in the slack? Why, next you'll be suggesting they should run to time in the first place! [/Sir Humphrey]

Sorry about the cynicism, but LM really are rubbish despite having shiny new stock. 110mph wouldn't get rid of the slow all stopper services, especially late at night, and I bet they'd still manage to arrive at MKC from Northampton late.

[61653]

...350s and 380s can't couple together.

Presumably that's not a completely insurmountable problem though, I'd have thought...

Same coupler type but the 380 couple is inverted in order to make it meet the tighter crash regulations introduced since the construction of 350s.

Surely it'd thus be possible, were it ever needed, to invert the couplers on the 350s too